DOC
C
ou
WITH
CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 3164 OF 2015
rt
WITH
CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 3165 OF 2015
ig
h
WITH
CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 428 OF 2016
ba
y
om
}
}
}
}
}
}
}
}
}
}
}
}
}
}
}
}
}
Petitioners
}
}
}
}
}
}
2. The Hon'ble Chief Justice,
}
High Court, through Registrar
}
General, High Court, Mumbai Fort }
area, Mumbai, Mumbai
}
Tal. Dist. Mumbai.
}
Page1of17
J.V.SALUNKE,PA
JUDGMENT-WP.10972.2015.DOC
ba
y
ig
h
C
ou
rt
Respondents
om
Page2of17
J.V.SALUNKE,PA
JUDGMENT-WP.10972.2015.DOC
1.
rt
C
ou
ig
h
ba
y
2.
along with two civil applications was placed before Honble the
Acting Chief Justice on the administrative side and Her Ladyship
om
3.
Accordingly,
with
advance
intimations
and
as
per
JUDGMENT-WP.10972.2015.DOC
rt
C
ou
4.
ig
h
5.
petition.
ba
y
Bench
of
this
court.
On
the
review
om
6.
JUDGMENT-WP.10972.2015.DOC
rt
C
ou
ig
h
2013 holding that the petitioners accept the position that this
court in para 11 of order dated 27 th April, 2012 had taken care of
prayer clauses (d), (e) and (f) of the writ petition. Yet, the
petitioner was heard by the Bench and the Bench observed that
the court had, on the earlier occasion, advised the petitioner to
make an appropriate representation to the appropriate authority.
ba
y
om
JUDGMENT-WP.10972.2015.DOC
record indicates that the petitioner had already filed Writ Petition
rt
No. 7943 of 2013. That was placed before a Division Bench of this
C
ou
7.
ig
h
ba
y
om
matter was placed before the Principal Seat. The record indicates
that the petitioner was not satisfied with the transfer of the
proceedings from the Bench at Aurangabad to the Principal Seat
and the circular dated 6th January, 2010 of the High Court. The
petitioner then got involved in those proceedings and which
together with the transferred matters from Aurangabad Bench
came up before a Division Bench of this court, which segregated
the matters, namely, Review Petition No. 60 of 2014 in Writ
Petition No. 4259 of 2014 and two writ petitions being Writ
Petition No. 5097 of 2012 and Writ Petition No. 5098 of 2012.
Page6of17
J.V.SALUNKE,PA
JUDGMENT-WP.10972.2015.DOC
rt
22nd August, 2014, 9th March, 2015 and 1st April, 2015. Finally,
C
ou
the review petition and the writ petitions came to be dismissed for
want of prosecution.
8.
ig
h
9.
ba
y
perusing, with his assistance, this petition and all the annexures
thereto, we do not see how we can entertain this petition. What
the petitioner has now done is to file a writ petition and which
was placed before a Bench at Aurangabad together with two civil
om
JUDGMENT-WP.10972.2015.DOC
rt
raising the same issues which he had raised during the course of
C
ou
12. Mr.
Dhond
learned
Senior
Counsel
appearing
for
ig
h
ba
y
om
JUDGMENT-WP.10972.2015.DOC
rt
the initial order dated 27th April, 2012 are disposed of. The
C
ou
14.
ig
h
ba
y
om
care to ensure that the petitioner gets a fair and just opportunity
to place his views. Therefore, we allowed him to tender a
15.
JUDGMENT-WP.10972.2015.DOC
rt
C
ou
16.
ig
h
ba
y
court. If the review has to be heard by the very same Judge, then
we do not see how the petitioner can complain that the said
review petition should not be heard by one of the Judges
comprising the Bench or if that is heard by a distinct Bench and
om
granted.
17.
JUDGMENT-WP.10972.2015.DOC
rt
C
ou
be applied, come what may litigants feel about it. Courts do not
make law but they interpret and apply a existing law. A
reiteration of these elementary principles is necessary because of
present day tendencies of litigants and parties, their approach
towards legal proceedings. They do not have a absolute,
ig
h
ba
y
the courts cannot ignore that law and reconsider its judgment
and order by a fresh hearing on the same concluded issues as if it
is repository of all powers, namely, original, appellate, revisional
etc. The remedy of those aggrieved by a final judgment and order
om
exploitation
by
vexing
one's
opponent,
in
JUDGMENT-WP.10972.2015.DOC
agony for one who asserts a plea against the other on failure to
rt
C
ou
gain and advantage to the public for they know what is the
ultimate status of a legal cause and their position on account of its
final conclusion. A just and peaceful society is built on this
foundation which none should weaken.
ig
h
18.
ba
y
om
19.
20.
JUDGMENT-WP.10972.2015.DOC
rt
C
ou
ig
h
ba
y
22.
om
Page13of17
J.V.SALUNKE,PA
23.
JUDGMENT-WP.10972.2015.DOC
rt
C
ou
ig
h
24.
ba
y
om
JUDGMENT-WP.10972.2015.DOC
rt
C
ou
ig
h
ba
y
personally, but ensures that the hand of the law is strong enough,
and its arm long enough to punish every guilty person howsoever
high he may be and to reach injustice wherever it is found.
om
J.V.SALUNKE,PA
JUDGMENT-WP.10972.2015.DOC
C
ou
rt
ig
h
29.
The decision of the Privy Council in
Maharajah Moheshur Singh v. Bengal Govt. (1857-60)
7 MIA 283 : 3 WR 45 (PC) to which reference was made
by learned Senior Counsel, Shri T. L. Vishwanath Iyer,
is very apt in this connection. Adverting to the basic
concept of review, it was observed by the Privy Council:
(p. 47)
ba
y
om
JUDGMENT-WP.10972.2015.DOC
(S.C.DHARMADHIKARI, J.)
om
ba
y
ig
h
(G.S.PATEL, J.)
C
ou
26.
rt
Page17of17
J.V.SALUNKE,PA